My rejoinder is plain:--Not only am I of course willing to yield to external evidence, but it is precisely 'external evidence' which makes me insist on retaining [Greek: deuteroproto--apo melissiou keriou--haras ton stauron--kai anephereto eis ton ouranon--hotan eklipete]--the 14th verse of St. Matthew's xxiiird chapter--and the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel. For my own part, I entirely deny the cogency of the proposed proof, and I have clearly already established the grounds of my refusal. Who then is to be the daysman between us? We are driven back on first principles, in order to ascertain if it may not be possible to meet on some common ground, and by the application of ordinary logical principles of reasoning to clear our view. [As to these we must refer the reader to the first volume of this work. Various cases of omission have been just quoted, and many have been discussed elsewhere.

Accordingly, it will not be necessary to exhibit this large cla.s.s of corruptions at the length which it would otherwise demand. But a few more instances are required, in order that the reader may see in this connexion that many pa.s.sages at least which the opposing school designate as Interpolations are really genuine, and that students may be placed upon their guard against the source of error that we are discussing.]

-- 4.

And first as to the rejection of an entire verse.

The 44th verse of St. Matt. xxi, consisting of the fifteen words printed at foot[265], is marked as doubtful by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers:--by Tischendorf it is rejected as spurious. We insist that, on the contrary, it is indubitably genuine; reasoning from the antiquity, the variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather, the general unanimity of its attestation.

For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vulgate,--in the Pes.h.i.tto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,--besides in the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. It is found also in Origen[266],-- ps.-Tatian[267]--Aphraates[268],--Chrysostom[269],--Cyril Alex.[270],-- the Opus Imperfectum[271],--Jerome[272],--Augustine[273]:--in Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Theta][Symbol: Sigma]XZ[Symbol: Delta][Symbol: Pi]EFG HKLMSUV,--in short, it is attested by every known Codex except two of bad character, viz.--D, 33; together with five copies of the Old Latin, viz.--a b e ff^{1} ff^{2}. There have therefore been adduced for the verse in dispute at least five witnesses of the second or third century:--at least eight of the fourth:--at least seven if not eight of the fifth: after which date the testimony in favour of this verse is overwhelming. How could we be justified in opposing to such a ma.s.s of first-rate testimony the solitary evidence of Cod. D (concerning which see above, Vol. I. c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive and a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even although the Lewis Codex has joined this petty band?]

But, says Tischendorf,--the verse is omitted by Origen and by Eusebius,--by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari,--as well as by Cyril of Alexandria. I answer, this most insecure of arguments for mutilating the traditional text is plainly inadmissible on the present occasion.

The critic refers to the fact that Irenaeus[274], Origen[275], Eusebius[276] and Cyril[277] having quoted 'the parable of the wicked husbandmen' _in extenso_ (viz. from verse 33 to verse 43), _leave off at verse_ 43. Why may they not leave off where the parable leaves off? Why should they quote any further? Verse 44 is nothing to their purpose. And since the Gospel for Monday morning in Holy Week [verses 18-43], in every known copy of the Lectionary actually ends at verse 43,--why should not their quotation of it end at the same verse? But, unfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we have seen,--the latter expressly,) elsewhere actually quote the verse in dispute. And how can Tischendorf maintain that Lucifer yields adverse testimony[278]?

That Father quotes _nothing but_ verse 43, which is all he requires for his purpose[279]. Why should he have also quoted verse 44, which he does not require? As well might it be maintained that Macarius Egyptius[280]

and Philo of Carpasus[281] omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they only quote verse 43.

I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned the omission of St.

Matt. xxi. 44 from a few Western copies of the Gospels[282].

Tischendorf's opinion that this verse is a fabricated imitation of the parallel verse in St. Luke's Gospel[283] (xx. 18) is clearly untenable.

Either place has its distinctive type, which either has maintained all down the ages. The single fact that St. Matt. xxi. 44 in the Pes.h.i.tto version has a sectional number to itself[284] is far too weighty to be set aside on nothing better than suspicion. If a verse so elaborately attested as the present be not genuine, we must abandon all hope of ever attaining to any certainty concerning the Text of Scripture.

In the meantime there emerges from the treatment which St. Matt. xxi. 44 has experienced at the hands of Tischendorf, the discovery that, in the estimation of Tischendorf, Cod. D [is a doc.u.ment of so much importance as occasionally to outweigh almost by itself the other copies of all ages and countries in Christendom.]

-- 5.

I am guided to my next example, viz. the text of St. Matt. xv. 8, by the choice deliberately made of that place by Dr. Tregelles in order to establish the peculiar theory of Textual Revision which he advocates so strenuously; and which, ever since the days of Griesbach, has it must be confessed enjoyed the absolute confidence of most of the ill.u.s.trious editors of the New Testament. This is, in fact, the second example on Tregelles' list. In approaching it, I take leave to point out that that learned critic unintentionally hoodwinks his readers by not setting before them in full the problem which he proposes to discuss. Thoroughly to understand this matter, the student should be reminded that there is found in St. Matt. xv. 8,--and parallel to it in St. Mark vii. 6,--

St. Matt.

'Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, "This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips ([Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos to stomati auton, kai tois cheilesi me tima]), but their heart is far from Me."'

St. Mark.

'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honoureth Me with their lips ([Greek: houtos ho laos tois cheilesi me tima]), but their heart is far from Me."'

The place of Isaiah referred to, viz. ch. xxix. 13, reads as follows in the ordinary editions of the LXX:--[Greek: kai eipe Kyrios, engizei moi ho laos houtos en to stomati autou, kai en tois cheilesin auton timosi me].

Now, about the text of St. Mark in this place no question is raised.

Neither is there any various reading worth speaking of in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred in respect of the text in St. Matthew. But when reference is made to the two oldest copies in existence, B and [Symbol: Aleph], we are presented with what, but for the parallel place in St.

Mark, would have appeared to us a strangely abbreviated reading. Both MSS. conspire in exhibiting St. Matt. xv. 8, as follows:--[Greek: ho laos houtos tois cheilesi me tima]. So that six words ([Greek: engizei moi] and [Greek: to stomati auton, kai]) are not recognized by them: in which peculiarity they are countenanced by DLT^{c}, two cursive copies, and the following versions:--Old Latin except f, Vulgate, Curetonian, Lewis, Pes.h.i.tto, and Bohairic, (Cod. A, the Sahidic and Gothic versions, being imperfect here.) To this evidence, Tischendorf adds a phalanx of Fathers:--Clemens Roma.n.u.s (A.D. 70), Ptolemaeus the Gnostic (A.D. 150), Clemens Alexandrinus (A.D. 190), Origen in three places (A.D. 210), Eusebius (A.D. 325), Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom: and Alford supplies also Justin Martyr (A.D. 150). The testimony of Didymus (A.D.

350), which has been hitherto overlooked, is express. Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, are naturally found to follow the Latin copies. Such a weight of evidence may not unreasonably inspire Dr. Tregelles with an exceeding amount of confidence. Accordingly he declares 'that this one pa.s.sage might be relied upon as an important proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many which accord with ancient testimony.' Availing himself of Dr. Scrivener's admission of 'the possibility that the disputed words in the great bulk of the MSS. were inserted from the Septuagint of Isaiah xxix. 13[285],' Dr. Tregelles insists 'that on every true principle of textual criticism, the words must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the Prophet. This naturally explains their introduction,' (he adds); 'and when once they had gained a footing in the text, it is certain that they would be multiplied by copyists, who almost always preferred to make pa.s.sages as full and complete as possible' (p. 139). Dr. Tregelles therefore relies upon this one pa.s.sage,--not so much as a 'proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many which accord with ancient testimony';--for one instance cannot possibly prove that; and that is after all beside the real question;--but, as a proof that we are to regard the text of Codd.

B[Symbol: Aleph] in this place as genuine, and the text of all the other Codexes in the world as corrupt.

The reader has now the hypothesis fully before him by which from the days of Griesbach it has been proposed to account for the discrepancy between 'the few copies' on the one hand, and the whole torrent of ma.n.u.script evidence on the other.

Now, as I am writing a book on the principles of Textual Criticism, I must be allowed to set my reader on his guard against all such unsupported dicta as the preceding, though enforced with emphasis and recommended by a deservedly respected name. I venture to think that the exact reverse will be found to be a vast deal nearer the truth: viz.

that undoubtedly spurious readings, although they may at one time or other have succeeded in obtaining a footing in MSS., and to some extent may be observed even to have propagated themselves, are yet discovered to die out speedily; seldom indeed to leave any considerable number of descendants. There has always in fact been a process of elimination going on, as well as of self-propagation: a corrective force at work, as well as one of deterioration. How else are we to account for the utter disappearance of the many _monstra potius quam variae lectiones_ which the ancients nevertheless insist were prevalent in their times? It is enough to appeal to a single place in Jerome, in ill.u.s.tration of what I have been saying[286]. To return however from this digression.

We are invited then to believe,--for it is well to know at the outset exactly what is required of us,--that from the fifth century downwards every _extant copy of the Gospels except five_ (DLT^{c}, 33, 124) exhibits a text arbitrarily interpolated in order to bring it into conformity with the Greek version of Isa. xxix. 13. On this wild hypothesis I have the following observations to make:--

1. It is altogether unaccountable, if this be indeed a true account of the matter, how it has come to pa.s.s that in no single MS. in the world, so far as I am aware, has this conformity been successfully achieved: for whereas the Septuagintal reading is [Greek: engizei moi ho laos outos EN to stomati AUTOU, kai EN tois cheilesin AUToN TIMoSI me],--the Evangelical Text is observed to differ therefrom in no less than six particulars.

2. Further,--If there really did exist this strange determination on the part of the ancients in general to a.s.similate the text of St. Matthew to the text of Isaiah, how does it happen that not one of them ever conceived the like design in respect of the parallel place in St. Mark?

3. It naturally follows to inquire,--Why are we to suspect the ma.s.s of MSS. of having experienced such wholesale depravation in respect of the text of St. Matthew in this place, while yet we recognize in them such a marked constancy to their own peculiar type; which however, as already explained, is _not_ the text of Isaiah?

4. Further,--I discover in this place a minute ill.u.s.tration of the general fidelity of the ancient copyists: for whereas in St. Matthew it is invariably [Greek: ho laos outos], I observe that in the copies of St. Mark,--except to be sure in (_a_) Codd. B and D, (_b_) copies of the Old Latin, (_c_) the Vulgate, and (_d_) the Pes.h.i.tto (all of which are confessedly corrupt in this particular,)--it is invariably [Greek: outos ho laos]. But now,--Is it reasonable that the very copies which have been in this way convicted of licentiousness in respect of St. Mark vii.

6 should be permitted to dictate to us against the great heap of copies in respect of their exhibition of St. Matt. xv. 8?

And yet, if the discrepancy between Codd. B and [Symbol: Aleph] and the great bulk of the copies in this place did not originate in the way insisted on by the critics, how is it to be accounted for? Now, on ordinary occasions, we do not feel ourselves called upon to inst.i.tute any such inquiry,--as indeed very seldom would it be practicable to do.

Unbounded licence of transcription, flagrant carelessness, arbitrary interpolations, omissions without number, disfigure those two ancient MSS. in every page. We seldom trouble ourselves to inquire into the history of their obliquities. But the case is of course materially changed when so many of the oldest of the Fathers and all the oldest Versions seem to be at one with Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. Let then the student favour me with his undivided attention for a few moments, and I will explain to him how the misapprehension of Griesbach, Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest, has arisen. About the MSS. and the Versions these critics are sufficiently accurate: but they have fatally misapprehended the import of the Patristic evidence; as I proceed to explain.

The established Septuagintal rendering of Isa. xxix. 13 in the Apostolic age proves to have been this,--[Greek: Engizei moi ho laos outos tois cheilesin auton timosi me]: the words [Greek: en to stomati auton, kai en] being omitted. This is certain. Justin Martyr[287] and Cyril of Alexandria in two places[288] so quote the pa.s.sage. Procopius Gazaeus in his Commentary on Origen's Hexapla of Isaiah says expressly that the six words in question were introduced into the text of the Septuagint by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Accordingly they are often observed to be absent from MSS.[289] They are not found, for example, in the Codex Alexandrinus.

But the asyndeton resulting from the suppression of these words was felt to be intolerable. In fact, without a colon point between [Greek: outos]

and [Greek: tois], the result is without meaning. When once the complementary words have been withdrawn, [Greek: engizei moi] at the beginning of the sentence is worse than superfluous. It fatally enc.u.mbers the sense. To drop those two words, after the example of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel, became thus an obvious proceeding.

Accordingly the author of the (so-called) second Epistle of Clemens Roma.n.u.s (-- 3), professing to quote the place in the prophet Isaiah, exhibits it thus,--[Greek: Ho laos outos tois cheilesi me tima]. Clemens Alexandrinus certainly does the same thing on at least two occasions[290]. So does Chrysostom[291]. So does Theodoret[292].

Two facts have thus emerged, which entirely change the aspect of the problem: the first, (_a_) That the words [Greek: en to stomati auton, kai en] were anciently absent from the Septuagintal rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13: the second, (_b_) that the place of Isaiah was freely quoted by the ancients without the initial words [Greek: engizei moi].

And after this discovery will any one be so perverse as to deny that on the contrary it must needs be Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph], and not the great bulk of the MSS., which exhibit a text corrupted by the influence of the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13? The precise extent to which the a.s.similating influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel has been felt by the copyists, I presume not to determine. The essential point is that the omission from St. Matthew xv. 8 of the words [Greek: To stomati auton, kai], is certainly due in the first instance to the ascertained Septuagint omission of those very words in Isaiah xxix. 13.

But that the text of St. Mark vii. 6 has exercised an a.s.similating influence on the quotation from Isaiah is demonstrable. For there can be no doubt that Isaiah's phrase (retained by St. Matthew) is [Greek: ho laos outos],--St. Mark's [Greek: outos ho laos]. And yet, when Clemens Roma.n.u.s quotes Isaiah, he begins--[Greek: outos ho laos][293]; and so twice does Theodoret[294].

The reader is now in a position to judge how much attention is due to Dr. Tregelles' dictum 'that this one pa.s.sage may be relied upon' in support of the peculiar views he advocates: as well as to his confident claim that the fuller text which is found in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred 'must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the prophet.' It has been shewn in answer to the learned critic that in the ancient Greek text of the prophet the 'amplification' he speaks of did not exist: it was the abbreviated text which was found there. So that the very converse of the phenomenon he supposes has taken place. Freely accepting his hypothesis that we have here a process of a.s.similation, occasioned by the Septuagintal text of Isaiah, we differ from him only as to the direction in which that process has manifested itself. He a.s.sumes that the bulk of the MSS. have been conformed to the generally received reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. But it has been shewn that, on the contrary, it is the two oldest MSS. which have experienced a.s.similation.

Their prototypes were depraved in this way at an exceedingly remote period.

To state this matter somewhat differently.--In all the extant uncials but five, and in almost every known cursive copy of the Gospels, the words [Greek: to stomati auton, kai] are found to belong to St. Matt.

xv. 8. How is the presence of those words to be accounted for? The reply is obvious:--By the fact that they must have existed in the original autograph of the Evangelist. Such however is not the reply of Griesbach and his followers. They insist that beyond all doubt those words must have been imported into the Gospel from Isaiah xxix. But I have shewn that this is impossible; because, at the time spoken of, the words in question had no place in the Greek text of the prophet. And this discovery exactly reverses the problem, and brings out the directly opposite result. For now we discover that we have rather to inquire how is the absence of the words in question from those few MSS. out of the ma.s.s to be accounted for? The two oldest Codexes are convicted of exhibiting a text which has been corrupted by the influence of the oldest Septuagint reading of Isaiah xxix. 13.

I freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that five ancient Versions, and all the following early writers,--Ptolemaeus[295], Clemens Alexandrinus[296], Origen[297], Didymus[298], Cyril[299], Chrysostom[300], and possibly three others of like antiquity[301],--should all quote St.

Matthew in this place from a faulty text. But this does but prove at how extremely remote a period the corruption must have begun. It probably dates from the first century. Especially does it seem to shew how distrustful we should be of our oldest authorities when, as here, they are plainly at variance with the whole torrent of ma.n.u.script authority.

This is indeed no ordinary case. There are elements of distrust here, such as are not commonly encountered.

-- 6.

What I have been saying is aptly ill.u.s.trated by a place in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount: viz. St. Matt. v. 44; which in almost every MS. in existence stands as follows:

(1) [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon], (2) [Greek: eulogeite tous kataromenous humas], (3) [Greek: kalos poieite tois misousin[302] humas], (4) [Greek: kai proseuchesthe huper ton epereazonton humas], (5) [Greek: kai diokonton hymas][303].

On the other hand, it is not to be denied that there exists an appreciable body of evidence for exhibiting the pa.s.sage in a shorter form. The fact that Origen six times[304] reads the place thus:

[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon, kai proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas].

(which amounts to a rejection of the second, third, and fourth clauses;)--and that he is supported therein by B[Symbol: Aleph], (besides a few cursives) the Curetonian, the Lewis, several Old Latin MSS., and the Bohairic[305], seems to critics of a certain school a circ.u.mstance fatal to the credit of those clauses. They are aware that Cyprian[306], and they are welcome to the information that Tertullian[307] once and Theodoret once[308] [besides Irenaeus[309], Eusebius[310], and Gregory of Nyssa[311]] exhibit the place in the same way. So does the author of the Dialogus contra Marcionitas[312],--whom however I take to be Origen. Griesbach, on far slenderer evidence, was for obelizing all the three clauses. But Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and the Revisers reject them entirely. I am persuaded that they are grievously mistaken in so doing, and that the received text represents what St. Matthew actually wrote. It is the text of all the uncials but two, of all the cursives but six or seven; and this alone ought to be decisive. But it is besides the reading of the Pes.h.i.tto, the Harkleian, and the Gothic; as well as of three copies of the Old Latin.

Let us however inquire more curiously for the evidence of Versions and Fathers on this subject; remembering that the point in dispute is nothing else but the genuineness of clauses 2, 3, 4. And here, at starting, we make the notable discovery that Origen, whose practice was relied on for retaining none but the first and the fifth clauses,--himself twice[313] quotes the first clause in connexion with the fourth: while Theodoret, on two occasions[314], connects with clause 1 what he evidently means for clause 2; and Tertullian once if not twice connects closely clauses 1, 2; and once, clauses 1, 2, 5[315]. From which it is plain that neither Origen nor Theodoret, least of all Tertullian, can be held to disallow the clauses in question. They recognize them on the contrary, which is simply a fatal circ.u.mstance, and effectively disposes of their supposed hostile evidence.